Representatives from the European Parliament, Council and Commission are gearing up for a second meeting on the new rules that will put an end to unfair geo-blocking suffered by consumers. The negotiations will take place in the afternoon of 13 June in Strasbourg.
It should be pointed out that the draft regulation makes it incumbent on traders to make their goods and services accessible to all EU consumers in terms of access to prices, sales or payment conditions (see EUROPE 11558). The Council adopted the general approach on 28 November 2016 (see EUROPE 11677), while the Parliamentary committee responsible for the internal market and consumer protection (IMCO) did so on 25 April last (see EUROPE 11774). During the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU meeting on 7 June, the Maltese Presidency received an updated negotiating brief.
According to the four-column graph seen by EUROPE, the main questions still pending involve the scope and jurisdiction applicable, as well as the re-examination clause.
Scope of application: under the terms of its mandate, the rapporteur at the European Parliament, Róża Thun (EPP, Poland), would like the regulation to prevent any discrimination based on nationality, place of residency or the “temporary location” of the consumer. The Presidency is proposing to maintain business relationships (B2B) within the scope, as initially proposed by the Commission and cover discrimination based on nationality, the place of residency or “place of establishment” of the consumer. Parliament also introduced the “online market” concept in an effort to cover all possible scenarios where geo-blocking can develop and proposed a definition in this connection.
Jurisdiction: the two institutions emphasise that businesses do not have any obligation to deliver in another member state and that in the event of “passive” sales, the latter will be able to apply the law of the country in which they are established. The Council’s position is that a trader who chooses to deliver their products abroad will, however, be subject to the law of the consumer’s country (Rome 1 and Brussels 1 principles).
Re-examination and application deadline: the positions of the co-legislators also diverge on the question of the scope of the re-examination clause. IMCO believes that this exercise should focus on other sectors “such as the audiovisual, financial, transport, electronic communications and health sectors”. The Council refers to works protected by copyright but does not provide any more details. The application deadline also raises a question: Parliament would like a six-month deadline, while the Council would like this to be 18 months.
A third trialogue is now planned for 27 June. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)